update_projectRename a project, change its goal or deadline, or archive/reactivate it. Archiving hides it from list_projects but leaves its tasks intact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| client | No | Client to scope the project lookup to. | |
| status | No | ||
| project | No | Name or @handle of the project. Fuzzy-resolved. | |
| deadline | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| project_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a meaningful side effect: archiving hides the project from list_projects while leaving tasks intact, which helps an agent understand the non-destructive nature. It does not cover all behavioral details, but the key non-obvious consequence is conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core operations and followed by one high-value behavioral clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, 0 required parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too brief to be fully actionable. It omits critical usage context such as how to select the project to update, whether identifiers are interchangeable, and what happens if multiple matching projects exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description only loosely maps to four of eight parameters: name, goal, deadline, and status. It does not explain how to identify the target project using project/project_id/client/client_id, whether null values clear fields, or how the fuzzy project resolution works. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's actions: rename a project, change its goal or deadline, and archive/reactivate it. It distinguishes the archiving behavior from list_projects by noting archived projects are hidden. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like create_project or update_project_context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used for modifying existing project fields, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as create_project, update_task, or update_project_context. There are no exclusions or conditional routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.
At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.
The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.